Pesticide

A pesticide is a substance or mixture of substances used for preventing, controlling, or lessening the damage caused by a pest.[1]
A pesticide may be a chemical substance, biological agent (such as a virus or bacteria), antimicrobial, disinfectant or device used against any pest. Pests include insects, plant pathogens, weeds, mollusks, birds, mammals, fish, nematodes (roundworms) and microbes that compete with humans for food, destroy property, spread or are a vector for disease or cause a nuisance. Many pesticides are poisonous to humans.

Pesticides can also be classed as synthetic pesticides or biological pesticides, although the distinction can sometimes blur.

Broad-spectrum pesticides are those that kill an array of species, while narrow-spectrum, or selective pesticides only kill a small group of species.[2]

A systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. This movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficiency may be a result. Systemic insecticides which poison pollen and nectar in the flowers may kill needed pollinators such as bees.

Uses and benefits

Pesticides are used to control organisms which are considered harmful.[4] For example, they are used to kill mosquitoes that can transmit potentially deadly diseases like west nile virus and malaria. They can also kill bees, wasps or ants that can cause allergic reactions. Insecticides can protect animals from illnesses that can be caused by parasites such as fleas.[4] Pesticides can prevent sickness in humans that could be caused by mouldy food or diseased produce. Herbicides can prevent vehicular accidents by clearing roadside trees and brush, which may block visibility for drivers. They can also kill invasive weeds in parks and wilderness areas which may cause environmental damage. Herbicides are commonly applied in ponds and lakes to control algae and plants such as water grasses that can interfere with activities like swimming and fishing and cause the water to look or smell unpleasant.[5] Uncontrolled pests such as termites and mould can damage structures such as houses.[4] Pesticides are used in grocery stores and food storage facilities to manage rodents and insects that infest food such as grain. Each use of a pesticide carries some associated risk. Proper pesticide use decreases these associated risks to a level deemed acceptable and may increase quality of life and protect property and the environment.

Pesticides save farmers money by preventing crop losses to insects and other pests; in the US, farmers get an estimated four-fold return on money they spend on pesticides.[6]

In 2006, the World Health Organization suggested the resumption of the limited use of DDT to fight malaria.[7] They called for the use of DDT to coat the inside walls of houses in areas where mosquitoes are prevalent. Dr. Arata Kochi, WHO's malaria chief, said, "One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual house spraying. Of the dozen insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying, the most effective is DDT."[7] Scientists estimate that DDT and other chemicals in the organophosphate class of pesticides have saved 7 million human lives since 1945 by preventing the transmission of diseases such as malaria, bubonic plague, sleeping sickness, and typhus.[2]

In the US, about a quarter of pesticides used are used in houses, yards, parks, golf courses, and swimming pools.[2] About 70% of the pesticides sold in the US are used in agriculture.[6]

History

Since before 2500 BC, humans have utilized pesticides to protect their crops. The first known pesticide was elemental sulfur dusting used in Sumeria about 4,500 years ago. By the 15th century, toxic chemicals such as arsenic, mercury and lead were being applied to crops to kill pests. In the 17th century, nicotinesulfate was extracted from tobacco leaves for use as an insecticide. The 19th century saw the introduction of two more natural pesticides, pyrethrum which is derived from chrysanthemums, and rotenone which is derived from the roots of tropical vegetables.[8]

In 1939, Paul Müller discovered that DDT was a very effective insecticide. It quickly became the most widely-used pesticide in the world.

In the 1940s manufacturers began to produce large amounts of synthetic pesticides and their use became widespread.[9] Some sources consider the 1940s and 1950s to have been the start of the "pesticide era."[10] Pesticide use has increased 50-fold since 1950 and 2.5 million tons (2.3 million metric tons) of industrial pesticides are now used each year.[8] Seventy-five percent of all pesticides in the world are used in developed countries, but use in developing countries is increasing.[2]

In the 1960s, it was discovered that DDT was preventing many fish-eating birds from reproducing, which was a serious threat to biodiversity. Rachel Carson wrote the best-selling book Silent Spring about biological magnification. DDT is now banned in at least 86 countries, but it is still used in some developing nations to prevent malaria and other tropical diseases by killing mosquitoes and other disease-carrying insects.[11]

Regulation

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

In most countries, in order to sell or use a pesticide, it must be approved by a government agency.[12] For example, in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does so. Complex and costly studies must be conducted to indicate whether the material is safe to use and effective against the intended pest. During the registration process, a label is created which contains directions for the proper use of the material. Based on acute toxicity, pesticides are assigned to a Toxicity Class.

Some pesticides are considered too hazardous for sale to the general public and are designated restricted use pesticides. Only certified applicators, who have passed an exam, may purchase or supervise the application of restricted use pesticides.[12] Records of sales and use are required to be maintained and may be audited by government agencies charged with the enforcement of pesticide regulations.

Though pesticide regulations differ from country to country, pesticides and products on which they were used are traded across international borders. To deal with inconsistencies in regulations among countries, delegates to a conference of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization adopted an International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides in 1985 to create voluntary standards of pesticide regulation for different countries.[12] The Code was updated in 1998 and 2002.[13] The FAO claims that the code has raised awareness about pesticide hazards and decreased the number of countries without restrictions on pesticide use.[14]

Two other efforts to improve regulation of international pesticide trade are the United Nations London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade and the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission. The former seeks to implement procedures for ensuring that prior informed consent exists between countries buying and selling pesticides, while the latter seeks to create uniform standards for maximum levels of pesticide residues among participating countries.[15] Both initiatives operate on a voluntary basis.[15]

Reading and following label directions is required by law in countries such as the US and in limited parts of the rest of the world.

In the US, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) was first passed in 1947, giving the United States Department of Agriculture responsibility for regulating pesticides.[12] In 1972, FIFRA underwent a major revision and transferred responsibility of pesticide regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency and shifted emphasis to protection of the environment and public health.[12]

Environmental effects

Use of pesticides can have unintended effects on the environment. Over 98% of sprayed insecticides and 95% of herbicides reach a destination other than their target species, including nontarget species, air, water, bottom sediments, and food.[2] Pesticide contaminates land and water when it escapes from production sites and storage tanks, when it runs off from fields, when it is discarded, when it is sprayed aerially, and when it is sprayed into water to kill algae.[16] The amount of pesticide that migrates from the intended application area is influenced by the particular chemical's properties: its propensity for binding to soil, its vapor pressure, its water solubility, and its resistance to being broken down over time.[6] Factors in the soil, such as its texture, its ability to retain water, and the amount of organic matter contained in it, also affect the amount of pesticide that will leave the area.[6]

Some pesticides contribute to global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer.[15]

Air

Pesticides can contribute to air pollution. Pesticide drift occurs when pesticides suspended in the air as particles are carried by wind to other areas, potentially contaminating them.[17] Pesticides that are applied to crops can volatilize and may be blown by winds into nearby areas, potentially posing a threat to wildlife.[18] Also, droplets of sprayed pesticides or particles from pesticides applied as dusts may travel on the wind to other areas,[19] or pesticides may adhere to particles that blow in the wind, such as dust particles.[20] Ground spraying produces less pesticide drift than aerial spraying does.[21] Farmers can employ a buffer zone around their crop, consisting of empty land or non-crop plants such as evergreen trees to serve as windbreaks and absorb the pesticides, preventing drift into other areas.[22] Such windbreaks are legally required in the Netherlands.[22]

Pesticides that are sprayed onto fields and used to fumigate soil can give off chemicals called volatile organic compounds, which can react with other chemicals and form a pollutant called ozone, accounting for an estimated 6% of the total ozone production.[23]

Water

In the United States, pesticides were found to pollute every stream and over 90% of wells sampled in a study by the US Geological Survey.[24] Pesticide residues have also been found in rain and groundwater.[6] Studies by the UK government showed that pesticide concentrations exceeded those allowable for drinking water in some samples of river water and groundwater.[25]

Pesticide impacts on aquatic systems are often studied using a hydrology transport model to study movement and fate of chemicals in rivers and streams. As early as the 1970s quantitative analysis of pesticide runoff was conducted in order to predict amounts of pesticide that would reach surface waters.[26]

There are four major routes through which pesticides reach the water: it may drift outside of the intended area when it is sprayed, it may percolate, or leach, through the soil, it may be carried to the water as runoff, or it may be spilled, for example accidentally or through neglect.[27] They may also be carried to water by eroding soil.[28] Factors that affect a pesticide's ability to contaminate water include its water solubility, the distance from an application site to a body of water, weather, soil type, presence of a growing crop, and the method used to apply the chemical.[29]

In the US, the Environmental Protection Agency sets Maximum Contamination Levels, or maximum allowable concentrations for individual pesticides in public bodies of water.[6][29]
Similarly, the government of the United Kingdom sets Environmental Quality Standards (EQS), or maximum allowable concentrations of some pesticides in bodies of water above which toxicity may occur.[30] The European Union also regulates maximum concentrations of pesticides in water.[30]

Soil

Many of the chemicals used in pesticides are persistent soil contaminants, whose impact may endure for decades and adversely affect soil conservation.[31]

The use of pesticides decreases the general biodiversity in the soil. Not using the chemicals results in higher soil quality,[32] with the additional effect that more organic matter in the soil allows for higher water retention.[6] This helps increase yields for farms in drought years, when organic farms have had yields 20-40% higher than their conventional counterparts.[33] A smaller content of organic matter in the soil increases the amount of pesticide that will leave the area of application, because organic matter binds to and helps break down pesticides.[6]

Plants

Nitrogen fixation, which is required for the growth of higher plants, is hindered by pesticides in soil.[34] The insecticides DDT, methyl parathion, and especially pentachlorophenol have been shown to interfere with legume-rhizobium chemical signaling.[34] Reduction of this symbiotic chemical signaling results in reduced nitrogen fixation and thus reduced crop yields.[34]Root nodule formation in these plants saves the world economy $10 billion in synthetic nitrogen fertilizer every year.[35]

Pesticides can kill bees and are strongly implicated in pollinator decline, the loss of species that pollinate plants, including through the mechanism of Colony Collapse Disorder,[36][37][38][39] in which worker bees from a beehive or Western honey bee colony abruptly disappear. Application of pesticides to crops that are in bloom can kill honeybees,[17] which act as pollinators. The USDA and USFWS estimate that US farmers lose at least $200 million a year from reduced crop pollination because pesticides applied to fields eliminate about a fifth of honeybee colonies in the US and harm an additional 15%.[2]

Persistent organic pollutants

Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are compounds that resist degradation and thus remain in the environment for years.[40] Some pesticides, including aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, and toxaphene, are considered POPs.[40] POPs have the ability to volatilize and travel great distances through the atmosphere to become deposited in remote regions.[40] The chemicals also have the ability to bioaccumulate and biomagnify, and can bioconcentrate (i.e. become more concentrated) up to 70,000 times their original concentrations.[40] POPs may continue to poison non-target organisms in the environment and increase risk to humans[41] by disruption in the endocrine, reproductive, and immune systems; cancer; neurobehavioral disorders,[40] infertility and mutagenic effects, although very little is currently known about these chronic effects. Some POPs have been banned, while others continue to be used.or to be shoved in someones bum hole during the process of sexual intercourse

Animals

Pesticides inflict extremely widespread damage to biota, and many countries have acted to discourage pesticide usage through their Biodiversity Action Plans.[citation needed]

Animals may be poisoned by pesticide residues that remain on food after spraying, for example when wild animals enter sprayed fields or nearby areas shortly after spraying.[21]

Widespread application of pesticides can eliminate food sources that certain types of animals need, causing the animals to relocate, change their diet, or starve.[17] Poisoning from pesticides can travel up the food chain; for example, birds can be harmed when they eat insects and worms that have consumed pesticides.[17] Some pesticides can bioaccumulate, or build up to toxic levels in the bodies of organisms that consume them over time, a phenomenon that impacts species high on the food chain especially hard.[17]

The USDA and USFWS estimate that about 20% of the endangered and threatened species in the US are jeopardized by use of pesticides.[2]

Birds

Birds are common examples of nontarget organisms that are impacted by pesticide use. Rachel Carson's landmark book Silent Spring dealt with the topic of loss of bird species due to bioaccumulation of pesticides in their tissues. There is evidence that birds are continuing to be harmed by pesticide use. In the farmland of Britain, populations of ten different species of birds have declined by 10 million breeding individuals between 1979 and 1999, a phenomenon thought to have resulted from loss of plant and invertebrate species on which the birds feed.[42] Throughout Europe, 116 species of birds are now threatened.[42] Reductions in bird populations have been found to be associated with times and areas in which pesticides are used.[42] In another example, some types of fungicides used in peanut farming are only slightly toxic to birds and mammals, but may kill off earthworms, which can in turn reduce populations of the birds and mammals that feed on them.[21]

Some pesticides come in granular form, and birds and other wildlife may eat the granules, mistaking them for grains of food.[21] A few granules of a pesticide is enough to kill a small bird.[21]

The herbicide paraquat, when sprayed onto bird eggs, causes growth abnormalities in embryos and reduces the number of chicks that hatch successfully, but most herbicides do not directly cause much harm to birds.[21] Herbicides may endanger bird populations by reducing their habitat.[21]

The USDA and USFWS estimate that over 67 million birds are killed by pesticides each year in the US.[2]

Aquatic life

Fish and other aquatic biota may be harmed by pesticide-contaminated water.[5] Pesticide surface runoff into rivers and streams can be highly lethal to aquatic life, sometimes killing all the fish in a particular stream.[43] For example, in Montague P.E.I., nine "fish kills" happened in one year: every fish, snake, and snail was killed in a river called Sutherland's Hole near potato farms from which herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides ran off after heavy rains.[43] Pesticide-related fish kills are frequently unreported and likely underestimated.[5]

Application of herbicides to bodies of water can cause fish kills when the dead plants rot and use up the water's oxygen, suffocating the fish.[5] Some herbicides, such as copper sulfite, that are applied to water to kill plants are toxic to fish and other water animals at concentrations similar to those used to kill the plants.[5] Repeated exposure to sublethal doses of some pesticides can cause physiological and behavioral changes in fish that reduce populations, such as abandonment of nests and broods, decreased immunity to disease, and increased failure to avoid predators.[5]

Application of herbicides to bodies of water can kill off plants on which fish depend for their habitat.[5]

Pesticides can accumulate in bodies of water to levels that kill off zooplankton, the main source of food for young fish.[44] Pesticides can kill off the insects on which some fish feed, causing the fish to travel farther in search of food and exposing them to greater risk from predators.[5]

The USDA and USFWS estimate that between 6 and 14 million fish are killed by pesticides each year in the US.[2]

The faster a given pesticide breaks down in the environment, the less threat it poses to aquatic life.[5] Insecticides are more toxic to aquatic life than herbicides and fungicides.[5]

Amphibians

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Some scientists believe that certain common pesticides already exist at levels capable of killing amphibians in California.[45] They warn that the breakdown products of these pesticides can be 10 to 100 times more toxic to amphibians than the original pesticides.[45] Direct contact of sprays of some pesticides (either by drift from nearby applications or accidental or deliberate sprays) can be highly lethal to amphibians.[46] A Canadian study showed that exposing tadpoles to endosulfan, an organochloride pesticide at levels that are likely to be found in habitats near fields sprayed with the chemical kills the tadpoles and causes behavioral and growth abnormalities.[47]

US scientists have found that some pesticides used in farming disrupt the nervous systems of frogs, and that use of these pesticides is correlated with a decline in the population of frogs in the Sierra Nevada.[48] In the past several decades, decline in amphibian populations has been occurring all over the world, for unexplained reasons which are thought to be varied but of which pesticides may be a part.[48] Being downwind from agricultural land on which pesticides are used has been linked to the decline in population of threatened frog species in California.[49]

Mixtures of multiple pesticides appear to have a cumulative toxic effect on frogs.[50] Tadpoles from ponds with multiple pesticides present in the water take longer to metamorphose into frogs and are smaller when they do, decreasing their ability to catch prey and avoid predators.[50]

In Minnesota, pesticide use has been causally linked to congenital deformities in frogs such as eye, mouth, and limb malformations.[51] Researchers in California found that similar deformities in frogs in the US and Canada may have been caused by breakdown products from pesticides which themselves did not pose a threat.[52]

The herbicide atrazine has been shown to turn male frogs into hermaphrodites, decreasing their ability to reproduce.[50]

Pest resistance

Main article: pesticide resistance

Pests may evolve to become resistant to pesticides. Many pests will initially be very susceptible to pesticides, but some with slight variations in their genetic makeup are resistant and therefore survive to reproduce. Through natural selection, the pests may eventually become very resistant to the pesticide.

Pest resistance to a pesticide is commonly managed through pesticide rotation, which involves alternating among pesticide classes with different modes of action to delay the onset of or mitigate existing pest resistance.[10]

Tankmixing pesticides is the combination of two or more pesticides with different modes of action in order to improve individual pesticide application results and delay the onset of or mitigate existing pest resistance.[citation needed]

Pest rebound and secondary pest outbreaks

Non-target organisms, organisms that the pesticides are not intended to kill, can be severely impacted by use of the chemicals. In some cases, where a pest insect has some controls from a beneficial predator or parasite, an insecticide application can kill both pest and beneficial populations. A study comparing biological pest control and use of pyrethroid insecticide for diamondback moths, a major cabbage family insect pest, showed that the insecticide application created a rebounded pest population due to loss of insect predators, whereas the biocontrol did not show the same effect.[53] Likewise, pesticides sprayed in an effort to control adult mosquitoes, may temporarily depress mosquito populations, however they may result in a larger population in the long run by damaging the natural controlling factors.[17] This phenomenon, wherein the population of a pest species rebounds to equal or greater numbers than it had before pesticide use, is called pest resurgence and can be linked to elimination of predators and other natural enemies of the pest.[9]

Loss of predator species can also lead to a related phenomenon called secondary pest outbreaks, an increase in problems from species which were not originally very damaging pests due to loss of their predators or parasites.[9] An estimated third of the 300 most damaging insects in the US were originally secondary pests and only became a major problem after the use of pesticides.[2] In both pest resurgence and secondary pest outbreaks, the natural enemies have been found to be more susceptible to the pesticides than the pests themselves, in some cases causing the pest population to be higher than it was before the use of pesticide.[9]

Health effects

Pesticides can present danger to consumers, bystanders, or workers during manufacture, transport, or during and after use.[54]

Farmers and workers

There have been many studies of farmers with the goal of determining the health effects of pesticide exposure.[55]

The World Health Organization and the UN Environment Programme estimate that each year, 3 million workers in agriculture in the developing world experience severe poisoning from pesticides, about 18,000 of whom die.[2]

Organophosphate pesticides have increased in use, because they are less damaging to the environment and they are less persistent than organochlorine pesticides.[56] These are associated with acute health problems for workers that handle the chemicals, such as abdominal pain, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting, as well as skin and eye problems.[57] Additionally, many studies have indicated that pesticide exposure is associated with long-term health problems such as respiratory problems, memory disorders, dermatologic conditions,[58][59] cancer,[60] depression, neurologic deficits,[61][62] miscarriages, and birth defects.[63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Summaries of peer-reviewed research have examined the link between pesticide exposure and neurologic outcomes and cancer, perhaps the two most significant things resulting in organophosphate-exposed workers.[72][73]

Consumers

This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

There is concern that pesticides used to control pests on food crops are dangerous to people who consume those foods. These concerns are one reason for the organic food movement. Many food crops, including fruits and vegetables, contain pesticide residues after being washed or peeled. Chemicals that are no longer used but which are resistant to breakdown for long periods may remain in soil and water and thus in food.[74]

In the US, levels of residues that remain on foods are limited to tolerance levels that are established by the US EPA and are considered safe.[75] The EPA sets the tolerances based on the toxicity of the pesticide and its breakdown products, the amount and frequency of pesticide application, and how much of the pesticide (i.e., the residue) remains in or on food by the time it is marketed and prepared.[76] Tolerance levels are obtained using scientific risk assessments that pesticide manufacturers are required to produce by conducting toxicological studies, exposure modeling and residue studies before a particular pesticide can be registered, however, the effects are tested for single pesticides, and there is little information on possible synergistic effects of exposure to multiple pesticide traces in the air, food and water.[77]

The United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission has recommended international standards for maximum limits on pesticide residues in food.[78]

A study published by the United States National Research Council in 1993 determined that for infants and children, the major source of exposure to pesticides is through diet.[79] A study in 2006 measured the levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure in 23 school children before and after replacing their diet with organic food (food grown without synthetic pesticides). In this study it was found that levels of organophosphorus pesticide exposure dropped dramatically and immediately when the children switched to an organic diet.[80]

In the US, the National Academy of Sciences estimates that between 4,000 and 20,000 cases of cancer are caused per year by pesticide residues in food in allowable amounts.[2]

The Pesticide Data Program, a program started by the United States Department of Agriculture is the largest tester of pesticide residues on food sold in the United States. It began in 1991, and has since tested over 60 different types of food for over 400 different types of pesticides - with samples collected close to the point of consumption. Their most recent summary results are from the year 2005:[81]

For example, on page 30 is comprehensive data on pesticides on fruits. Some example data:

Fresh Fruit and Vegetables

Number of Samples Analyzed

Samples with Residues Detected

Percent of Samples with Detections

Different Pesticides Detected

Different Residues Detected

Total Residue Detections

Apples

774

727

98

33

41

2,619

Lettuce

743

657

88

47

57

1,985

Pears

741

643

87

31

35

1,309

Orange Juice

186

93

50

3

3

94

They were also able to test for multiple pesticides within a single sample and found that:

These data indicate that 29.5 percent of all samples tested contained no detectable pesticides [parent

The Environmental Working Group used the results of nearly 43,000 tests for pesticides on produce collected by the USDA and the U.S. FDA between 2000 and 2004, to produce a ranking of 43 commonly eaten fruits & vegetables.[82]

To reduce the amounts of pesticide residues in food, consumers can wash, peel, and cook their food; trim the fat from meat; and eat a variety of foods to avoid repeat exposure to a pesticide typically used on a given crop.[74] Consumers can also buy food that is grown organically, though even organic food may have traces of pesticides.[74]

The public

Exposure routes other than consuming food that contains residues, in particular pesticide drift, are potentially significant to the general public.[83]

The Bhopal disaster occurred when a pesticide plant released 40 tons of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, intermediate chemical in the production of some pesticides. The disaster immediately killed nearly 3,000 people and ultimately caused at least 15,000 deaths.[84]

In China, an estimated half million people are poisoned by pesticides each year, 500 of whom die.[85]

Children have been found to be especially susceptible to the harmful effects of pesticides.[86] A number of research studies have found higher instances of brain cancer, leukemia and birth defects in children with early exposure to pesticides, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.[87]

Peer-reviewed studies now suggest neurotoxic effects on developing animals from organophosphate pesticides at legally-tolerable levels, including fewer nerve cells, lower birth weights, and lower cognitive scores.[citation needed] The EPA finished a 10 year review of the organophosphate pesticides following the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, but did little to account for developmental neurotoxic effects, drawing strong criticism from within the agency and from outside researchers.[88][89]

Some scientists think that exposure to pesticides in the uterus may have negative effects on a fetus that may manifest as problems such as growth and behavioral disorders or reduced resistance to pesticide toxicity later in life.[90]

A new study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, has discovered a 70% increase in the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease for people exposed to even low levels of pesticides.[91]

One study found that use of pesticides may be behind the finding that the rate of birth defects such as missing or very small eyes is twice as high in rural areas as in urban areas.[92] Another study found no connection between eye abnormalities and pesticides.[92]

Pyrethrins, insecticides commonly used in common bug killers, can cause a potentially deadly condition if breathed in.[93]

Continuing development

Pesticide safety education and pesticide applicator regulation are designed to protect the public from pesticide misuse, but do not eliminate all misuse. Reducing the use of pesticides and choosing less toxic pesticides may reduce risks placed on society and the environment from pesticide use.[5]Integrated pest management, the use of multiple approaches to control pests, is becoming widespread and has been used with success in countries such as Indonesia, China, Bangladesh, the US, Australia, and Mexico.[2] IPM attempts to recognize the more widespread impacts of an action on an ecosystem, so that natural balances are not upset.[9] New pesticides are being developed, including biological and botanical derivatives and alternatives that are thought to reduce health and environmental risks. In addition, applicators are being encouraged to consider alternative controls and adopt methods that reduce the use of chemical pesticides.

Pesticides can be created that are targeted to a specific pest's life cycle, which can be more environmentally-friendly.[94] For example, potato cyst nematodes emerge from their protective cysts in response to a chemical excreted by potatoes; they feed on the potatoes and damage the crop.[94] A similar chemical can be applied to fields early, before the potatoes are planted, causing the nematodes to emerge early and starve in the absence of potatoes.[94]

Alternatives

Alternatives to pesticides are available and include methods of cultivation, use of other organisms to kill pests, genetic engineering, and methods of interfering with insect breeding.[2]

Cultivation practices include polyculture (growing multiple types of plants), crop rotation, planting crops in areas where the pests that damage them do not live, timing planting according to when pests will be least problematic, and use of trap crops that attract pests away from the real crop.[2] In the US, farmers have had success controlling insects by spraying with hot water at a cost that is about the same as pesticide spraying.[2]

Release of other organisms that fight the pest is another example of an alternative to pesticide use. These organisms can include natural predators or parasites of the pests.[2] Pathogens such as bacteria and viruses which cause disease in the pest species can also be used.[2]

Interfering with insects' reproduction can be accomplished by sterilizing males of the target species and releasing them, so that they mate with females but do not produce offspring.[2] This technique was first used on the screwworm fly in 1958 and has since been used with the medfly, the tsetse fly,[95] and the gypsy moth.[96] However, this can be a costly, time consuming approach that only works on some types of insects.[2]

Some evidence shows that alternatives to pesticides can be equally effective as the use of chemicals. For example, Sweden has halved its use of pesticides with hardly any reduction in crops.[2] In Indonesia, farmers have reduced pesticide use on rice fields by 65% and experienced a 15% crop increase.[2]

^ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Programmes: International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Retrieved on 2007-10-25.

^ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2002), International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. Retrieved on 2007-10-25.

^ abc Reynolds, JD (1997), International pesticide trade: Is there any hope for the effective regulation of controlled substances? Florida State University Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law, Volume 131. Retrieved on 2007-10-16.

^ Tashkent (1998), Part 1. Conditions and provisions for developing a national strategy for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity Conservation National Strategy and Action Plan of Republic of Uzbekistan. Prepared by the National Biodiversity Strategy Project Steering Committee with the Financial Assistance of The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and Technical Assistance of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Retrieved on September 17, 2007.

^ ab Cone M (December 6, 2000), A wind-borne threat to Sierra frogs: A study finds that pesticides used on farms in the San Joaquin Valley damage the nervous systems of amphibians in Yosemite and elsewhere. L.A. Times Retrieved on September 17, 2007.

^ScienceDaily (November 28, 2002), More evidence to link pesticide use with amphibian decline. Sciencedaily.com. Retrieved on September 17, 2007.